The evidence base on online versus alternative training for licensed health professionals is limited by small samples, high risk of bias, and imprecise effect estimates¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Of the 14 included RCTs, 71% (10/14) were classified as unclear or high risk of bias and sample sizes ranged from 21 to 183. → Richmond Helen 2017 q2 i? Observed effect sizes were imprecise with wide confidence intervals, and control interventions often differed from online interventions in ways other than mode of delivery. → Richmond Helen 2017 (2)

Evidence¶

Richmond Helen 2017¶

Richmond Helen, Copsey Bethan, Hall Amanda M., Davies David, Lamb Sarah E. (2017). A systematic review and meta-analysis of online versus alternative methods for training licensed health care professionals to deliver clinical interventions. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-017-1047-4

q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Review of 14 included RCTs (1089 licensed health professionals) identified from 884 records; risk of bias assessed with the Cochrane tool by two independent reviewers. The review reports "71% (10/14) of studies classified as having unclear or high risk of bias" and reporting quality generally poor.

"The majority of sample sizes were small and ranged from 21 to 183. Methodological quality was poor overall with 71% (10/14) of studies classified as having unclear or high risk of bias."

Richmond Helen 2017 (2)¶

Richmond Helen, Copsey Bethan, Hall Amanda M., Davies David, Lamb Sarah E. (2017). A systematic review and meta-analysis of online versus alternative methods for training licensed health care professionals to deliver clinical interventions. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-017-1047-4

q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

The review authors' limitations section states effect sizes were "imprecise with wide confidence intervals" and that control interventions often differed from online interventions in factors other than delivery mode, so the cause of any difference could not be determined.

"Despite these strengths, our observed effect sizes were imprecise with wide confidence intervals, as indicated by the GRADE ratings, and thus the results from the meta-analyses should be interpreted cautiously."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Online training shows no difference from taught lectures for knowledge or practical skills in licensed health professionals, at very low evidence quality
• Online training was more effective than written manuals for knowledge (SMD 0.99) but showed no difference for clinical behaviour, at very low evidence quality
• Online training shows no difference from interactive workshops for knowledge, practical skills, clinical behaviour, self-efficacy, or satisfaction in licensed health professionals, at low or very low evidence quality
• The overall certainty of evidence for educational programme effects on nurses' knowledge and practice is very low (GRADE), driven by bias, inconsistency and imprecision — a broader claim this one bears on